As Pogo said, way back in the 1971 Earth Day edition of a then-famous comic strip, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Even when we don't do anything: In the post-imperial age, powerful nations no longer have to invade and kill. Simply by driving a Chevy Suburban, we can make the oceans rise and wipe the distant Maldive Islands off the face of the Earth. This is a kind of malignant narcissism so ingrained it's now taught in our grade schools. Which may be why, even when the New Republic's diarist goes to Iraq and meets the real enemy, he still assumes it's us.

49 comments:

I like what Glen Reynolds said today: I thought dissent was supposed to be the highest form of patriotism. . . . Personally, as I've noted before, the whole debate seems to me to be a religious sideshow. Regardless of what you think about global warming, there are lots of good reasons to avoid burning fossil fuels. But the global-warming discussion in the media is a consensus identity narrative designed to achieve political ends, not an effort to find facts or protect the environment. And this also accounts for the backlash.

And that is why this cynic about Global Warming recyles, turns off lights and computers, and worries about fuel efficiency.

But Glen is right - my opposition to GW is at the gut level, and does not involve that much more science than used on the pro side. Rather, it is mostly in opposition to the politically correct religious herd instinct imposed by the MSM, etc.

Walt Kelly's line has adorned many a left-liberal cause since Earth Day 1971. But what TNR and the Global warming true believers failed to see was that, in this instance, the enemy that is us was not their favorite targets, but themselves.

christopher, in the interest of time, please identify whether you're actually sane and pretending to be a leftist loon, or instead if you are an actual loon, who beleives "The police, the armed services, the courts, political parties, multi-national corporations – when things go wrong they are the usual suspects.", that is you are "antiindustry, anti-capital-ism, antiadvertising, antiselling, antiprofit, antipatriotism, antimonarchy, antiempire, antipolice, antiarmed forces, antibomb, antiauthority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place – you name it, [you are] anti it. "

I just think it's great that Althouse regularly gives us the wingnut recap tour de force from neo-hobbits like Mark Steyn, and links and opinions from the great minds of Hugh Hewitt and John H. Hinderaker. They're all right there with their thumb right on the beating pulse of the American public.

"I just think it's great that Althouse regularly gives us the recap tour de force from Mark Steyn, and links and opinions from the great minds of Hugh Hewitt and John H. Hinderaker. They're all right there with their thumb right on the beating pulse of the American public.'

I agree. I think Mark Steyn is great and that Hewitt and Hinderaker give us something more than the usual MSM liberal spin.

The New Republic probably does not influence the majority of Americans...so attacking them for attacking our troops represents an 'Inside the Beltway' type of phenomenon. Most of the American public maintains enormous respect, admiration, and compassion for the young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. They view most of these soldiers as regular, honest, decent people. However, I believe a significant number of 'regular' Americans view the political leadership that conceptualized and executed the war in Iraq with dismay and distrust.

Nazi Germany didn't attack us either. And whats the point of having an inspection's regime and UN resolution if you aren't prepared to use force to enforce them?

I don't understand how the Left can put so much faith in multilateral insitutions and then abandon them in the face of petty rogue states and dictators. Its like arguing for a Code of Law, but opposing any police effort to enforce those laws.

We ARE the enemy, you malignant moron. Go fuck yourself.

In the future, you may want to simply skip the false assertions and go straight to the ad homs.

"I just think it's great that Althouse regularly gives us the recap tour de force from Mark Steyn, and links and opinions from the great minds of Hugh Hewitt and John H. Hinderaker. They're all right there with their thumb right on the beating pulse of the American public."

naked lunch: Nah, you guys are the fringe man. Not many people buy this shit anymore. I'm squarely with the vast majority of people in this country that easily figured this out years ago.

NakedLunch sums up the Left's appeal to conformity rather nicely. Its not that he's thought through the issues carefully and found fault, its that he's going along with the herd, because he wants to fit in and do whats popular.

you forget that when it comes to putting in place government programs for the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning for government money, when it comes time to ban PC hate speech, to prosecute PC hate crimes, to silence dissent against good authority, to impeach Bush, these people support authority & authority figures.

Let me help you. With your untrained eye, you don’t understand that they are engaging in constructive criticism; that is they’re only critical of today’s America, which has been hijacked by what Mindsteps sees as the current rogue leadership, because they love America more, much more, than you or I do. They love America so much that it only appears that they hate it. Ever hear of “tough love"? This is “tough patriotism”.

Finally, remember this which I’ll put in Bumper Sticker-ese for you

“America has no external enemies, only internal Right-wing nut enemies.”

Try to understand.

Um, actually, I’m having a bit of trouble understanding why these people keep saying that they want to save an America which is so evil as to be infra dig. Let me get back to you on that.

I’m having a bit of trouble understanding why these people keep saying that they want to save an America which is so evil..."

I've wondered that too. I think (and this is pure speculation, of course) that they have constructed an idealized U.S. in their minds that embodies all the qualities they wish existed in a powerful nation-state, then look at the real, existing U.S. and are so angered by the distance between the real and their ideal that, at varying levels, they decide the real thing has to go.

It's kind of like a boyfriend or girlfriend who says, "I really really love you, except when you do x, or y, and z kind of pisses me off, and do you think you could change your hair color and lose 20 pounds, and maybe stop listening to that horrible music you like?"

I really missed the four letter words in the Steyn article, and the person who started the ad hominum attacks was aiming them at Steyn, and not defending him.

I thought that he made some good points about the fact that American soft power is attacked, because we can't be attacked for being imperialists. I can fully understand why our soft power is feared, almost as much as our hard power. As some have noted, there are central states, and all the rest, and the central states are those that affect others without being overly affected by them. There are essentially two of them now, the U.S. and China, and the later probably less than in the past.

It is likely those countries with faded glory as central states that resent this the most. I am thinking of France in particular, but also probably parts of the Islamic world.

Nazi Germany didn't attack us either. And whats the point of having an inspection's regime and UN resolution if you aren't prepared to use force to enforce them?

nazi germany declared war on the united states (immediately following pearl harbor and preceding any declaration by us) AND represented an existential threat to the entire western civilization AND at the time, was actively, malignantly and effectively prosecuting that threat. by contrast, saddam's iraq didn't pose an existential threat to even its weakling neighbors, as colin powell observed in 2001 that, as a result of sanctions, the 1998 bombings and widespread deterioration among the armed forces, iraq lacked the ability to project force.

I don't understand how the Left can put so much faith in multilateral insitutions and then abandon them in the face of petty rogue states and dictators. Its like arguing for a Code of Law, but opposing any police effort to enforce those laws.

the UN did not authorize or otherwise condone the invasion of Iraq as the attack did not fall under the accepted, legal uses of force under the UN charter. it was the invasion that represented the abandonment of the UN, not the reverse.

Lunch's comment reminds me of...oh, which one was it...hdhouse?...insisting that the Democrats are going to win in 2008. Not just the Dems but a specific candidate, even.

I can't look at the great mass of people I don't know and think, "I know what you're thinking." I know they don't agree with a lot of what I hold to be true. I've also observed that sometimes they've been right even when I disagreed with them. ("Them" being a very artificial and self-centered construct, I realize).

I also can't tell myself that I know what they'll be thinking a year from now. Prognostication has never been my strong suit.

But I wonder what it must be like to be so totally invested in such projections.

I would add that Mark Steyn's understanding of global climate change seems extremely primative. If he had bothered to examine the revised data before ignorantly writing about it, he would have realized that global mean temperatures were imperceptibly onchanged. Also, the longer term United States average temperature rankings remain unchanged (e.g., 2002-06 is still warmer than 1930-34). In short, the recalculated US temperature series has no impact in changing the analysis of global climate data.

But, but, malignant narcissism is dissent! Arguing your nation is the Font of all global evil and must be stopped by the higher morality of the UN and "supreme international law" is dissent!

And how many times have we heard the highest form of patriotism is such dissent?

About as many times as certain Leftist Parties have said they support the "evil, corpse-desecrating, dog killing, duped children in uniform" sorta troops??

*****************An example of such a Patriotic, troop-supporting" Dissenterchristopher said...

"We invaded a country that didn't attack us. We ARE the enemy, you malignant moron. Go fuck yourself."

Well, I guess patriots like Christopher have ruled out any more involvements in Haiti, Africa, or "going after Al Qaeda" in a country, Pakistan, that "never attacked us".

I know the "evil American interventionist forces" that once would have supported going in to Darfur have grown so sick of being slandered as criminal and delegitimate by the Left for violating "Iraq's sovereignity" they are perfectly willing to turn Darfur matter over to the "wiser processes and higher morality of the UN".

"In short, the recalculated US temperature series has no impact in changing the analysis of global climate data."

In the world of the human-caused climate change neo-religionists, nothing has an impact in changing the analysis of global climate data, does it? If Gaia appeared in a cloud of flower petals and announced to the world "look, piss-ants, the climate changes with or without you; don't try to take credit for everything" it would have no impact on the analysis of global climate data, would it?

And another Patriotic Dissenter, the Exhaled, backed of course by his not Red but pinkish poofter from Across the Pond, Pinky

"The UN did not authorize or otherwise condone the invasion of Iraq as the attack did not fall under the accepted, legal uses of force under the UN charter. it was the invasion that represented the abandonment of the UN, not the reverse."

Does that mean that at the War Crimes Trials for Bush and all members of Congress that voted to go into Iraq after they defied 17 UN Security Council resolutions, that you also support putting Clinton on trial for "War Crimes" for attacking Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo without the Modavan's, Belgians, and Gaboonians say so?

I guess that Iraq vote in defiance of the Supreme Moral Authority of the UN puts Hillary, Dodd, Edwards, Thompson, Biden, Hunter, Tancredo, McCain in the Hague Docket. With Rudy, Romney, and Huckabee unindicted co-conspirators for supporting the war.

Leaving voters to choose between Ron Paul, Kuchinich, the nut from Alaska, and of course the unbelievable bravery and judgement of the State Senator from a Hard Left city district in opposing the war.

Ohh, I forgot, Obama lost his moral purity when he proposed attacking a country that never attacked us, Pakistan, without UN permission and "legitimacy" in certain circumstances.

Guess that rules out the Magic Negro, too!

Leaving the nut from Alaska and his two co-nuts.....But Ron Paul is a Republican and fails other moral purity tests...like for one, calling loss of American sovereignity to the UN a crime in itself...

And, you make a good comparison to Pogo’s “antis” with “a boyfriend or girlfriend who wants change” & who says : I really, really love you, but I demand change.

Funny. Except that these people of the City upon a Hill are really, really demanding.

As Pogo puts it

“Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place – you name it, [they are] anti it.”

And then there’s Steyn’s reference to Margaret Drabble’s dribbles about how they:

“detest American imperialism, American infantilism, and American triumphalism”.

But as the guy on TV says; “wait; there’s more”: they are of such super moral rectitude & acumen that they, & they alone, have gotten the supernatural guidance which enables them to realize that America is too dumb to achieve its evil goals.

Too booboisie (what, Robert Byrd, Nevermind; he’s the Cicero of the Senate), too bumptious (Bush ignored Colin Powell, you know when he said “if you go to war, I’ll resign as S of S), too callow (doesn’t understand the Global Warming Theory; what some govt. agency says that 1998 was not the warmest year on record & the 2000 yrs are no longer in the top ten; lies, lies or the old data was FBA), too vainglorious (we ignored the UN - beats me where they get that).

Like your girl/boy comparison, it’s the disconnect, the ADD, the dislocative state of these people which amuses me.

Cyrus: would add that Mark Steyn's understanding of global climate change seems extremely primative. If he had bothered to examine the revised data before ignorantly writing about it, he would have realized that global mean temperatures were imperceptibly onchanged

The latest talking point from the Left: "forget that we've been trumpteting 1998 as the warmest year in US climate history, forget that four of America's Top 10 hottest years turn out to be from the 1930s, lets talk about global climate history instead."...

I'm actually disappointed with you Cyrus. A while back you lamented the fact that the Left had distorted Gingrich's behavior with the "Newt served his wife divorce papers in the hospital" myth, because you felt it undermined any legitimate points they were making.

Likewise, I've complained to you about the GW "hoax" because I don't trust such conclusions when people like Mann refuse to open their methodology up after their work is called into question [and discredited]

Now we have yet another scientist who refused to release his model for scrutiny. Steve McIntyre [again] had to reverse engineer it to find the flaws. So now I'm even more skeptical of the "settled science" behind Global Warming.

I thought science was also about being able to replicate experiments? How can the research be confirmed when the scientists refuse to share their data, algorithims and models? And why would any respectable scientist refuse to let others scrutinize his work?

Instead of distracting with "ignore the mistake on US data, look over here at global data instead", you should be complaining that shenanigans from scientists like Mann and the NASA guy undermine the credibility of the Global Warming movement.

The UN authorized the liberation of Kuwait. We went to war with Iraq, they lost, they signed a cease-fire, then routinely violated same cease-fire.

as colin powell observed in 2001 that, as a result of sanctions, the 1998 bombings and widespread deterioration among the armed forces, iraq lacked the ability to project force.

Strawman. We didn't go back into Iraq to prevent them from projecting force. We went in for several other reasons - mainly to overthrow a rogue state that was in violation of multiple UN resolutions, that had perverted the sanctions regime, that was not cooperating with the inspections regime. We went in to depose Saddam because he had re-established his WMD programs [even outsourced them to Sudan and Libya] and was sponsoring international terrorism.

I don't understand how the Left can put so much faith in multilateral insitutions and then abandon them in the face of petty rogue states and dictators. Its like arguing for a Code of Law, but opposing any police effort to enforce those laws.

it was the invasion that represented the abandonment of the UN, not the reverse.

"United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).[citation needed]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 was adopted at the 2981st meeting on 3 April 1991, to declare a formal cease-fire at the end of the Gulf War and impose peace terms on Iraq. It also demanded the removal of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It was passed by 12 votes to one (Cuba) with two abstentions (Ecuador and Yemen).

Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991. That this represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed."

Just curious Exalted, what else would you have tried? What does "serious consequences" [UN] mean to you? More toothless UN resolutions? More Oil for Food bribery? More deception re WMD programs, non-cooperation with weapon's inspectors?

We tried "soft power" for 12 years, and Saddam just strung us along. What would you have done other than use force to enforce the will of your mulitlateral institutions?

Well, if Mark Steyn says there is no global warming, we might as well stop worrying about it.

Personally, I don't give a shit about the enivronment. That's why I refuse to recycle and that's why I leave the air conditioner blasting while I'm at work (don't want my cats to be hot, and I want it to be cool when I get home).

And if global warming really does mean the end of the world, yawn, I'll be dead by the time there are any serious consequences anyway.

Strawman. We didn't go back into Iraq to prevent them from projecting force. We went in for several other reasons - mainly to overthrow a rogue state that was in violation of multiple UN resolutions, that had perverted the sanctions regime, that was not cooperating with the inspections regime. We went in to depose Saddam because he had re-established his WMD programs [even outsourced them to Sudan and Libya] and was sponsoring international terrorism.

all of the stated reasons had to do with preventing some sort of impending threat that iraq posed. if iraq could not threaten its neighbors, it very well could not do much to threaten the united states.

its funny you mention the "inspections regime" repeatedly, when the head inspector, hans blix, wanted more time, and his organization, the UN, wanted more time. and guess what? your fantasies aside, iraq had no wmd, they should have gotten more time.

iraq wasn't complying with the inspections regime because it needed the threat deterrent against its internal enemies and neighbors. to the extent our intelligence professionals deduced this, they were ignored in favor of those supporting the drumbeat.

the only thing that was "imminent" about the situation was distance between the date of an invasion and 9/11, aka, the longer an invasion was delayed, the more critically the decision would be reviewed by the opposition, the press, and the media.

should there be penalites for failing to comply? of course. do those penalites have to include a 500 billion dollar war that we initiate? of course not.

I don't understand how the Left can put so much faith in multilateral insitutions and then abandon them in the face of petty rogue states and dictators. Its like arguing for a Code of Law, but opposing any police effort to enforce those laws.

i answered this in the previous post. even assuming the american invasion was the correct step in a pragmatic or moral sense (which it was not), it was outside the UN framework, aka it was vigilantism. do you really believe that the US invasion had anything to do with the UN? please.

"United Nations Security Council Resolution..."

When it comes to a use of force, the only resolution that matters is a resolution authorizing the use of force. Don't like it? Then stop pretending the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with the UN.

Just curious Exalted, what else would you have tried? What does "serious consequences" [UN] mean to you? More toothless UN resolutions? More Oil for Food bribery? More deception re WMD programs, non-cooperation with weapon's inspectors?

We tried "soft power" for 12 years, and Saddam just strung us along. What would you have done other than use force to enforce the will of your mulitlateral institutions?

Seriously, what would you have done next?

when you say "saddam just strung us along" you are operating in a fantasy world.

saddam's iraq was contained. the sanctions system, and, particularly, the 1998 bombing campaign, had gutted its threat projection capabilities (that includes WMD). in other words, what we were doing was working.

did saddamn flout the inspections regime and steal money from the oil-for-food program? of course. did those actions imperil the global or regional security architecture? hell no.

there was no impending threat, there was no need for a pre-emptive invasion.

are there positives to be gained from the end of the saddam regime? of course. are those positives worth any price? of course not.

i find it continually amazing that the party i used to associate with steely pragmatism is now dominated by starry-eyed ideologues incapable of any cost/benefit analysis.

The exalted-If the invasion was "vigilantism" because the UN didn't sign on, and if the reason the UN didn't sign on was because a number of members were bought by Saddam, would that not discredit the institution? And remove the requirement of obtaining the UN's agreement and permission to proceed? Or should we have made a counter offer and try to sway some votes back our way?

"...the only thing that was "imminent" about the situation...."

I don't know why people keep saying things like that. The whole idea of invading was to preempt Iraq becoming an imminent threat. This was stated in one of the state of the union speeches before the invasion.

How would you handle Iraq shooting at our planes? What was the extent of Iraq's participation in the 93 bombing of the Towers? In the assassination attempt of GHWB?

"iraq wasn't complying with the inspections regime because it needed the threat deterrent against its internal enemies and neighbors.

So it's internal enemies and neighbors didn't catch on to this, as well as most of the rest of the world, but you and some of our intelligence did? And assuming you were president, you were willing to bet the lives of the American people that Saddam was bluffing? How many of your assumptions come from what you now know post invasion?

jeff said... The exalted-If the invasion was "vigilantism" because the UN didn't sign on, and if the reason the UN didn't sign on was because a number of members were bought by Saddam, would that not discredit the institution?

if that were the case, then yes, at that time, for that situation, it would. given that there were no wmd, i dont think you can credibly argue that was the case.

this was the reason the UN was a joke for much of the cold war...

And remove the requirement of obtaining the UN's agreement and permission to proceed?

i never said it was a requirement. fen brought up the UN. my position is, if you're going to bring it up, discuss it honestly.

though, i think the wisdom of collective security dictates that we should not lightly give the UN the finger as, at some point, the whole organization falls apart from such action. and here, as there was no real threat, going outside the UN was not merited.

"...the only thing that was "imminent" about the situation...."

I don't know why people keep saying things like that. The whole idea of invading was to preempt Iraq becoming an imminent threat. This was stated in one of the state of the union speeches before the invasion.

i certainly remember talk of his threat growing exponentially in a matter of "months" and the nonsense about the "final evidence coming in the form of a mushroom cloud."

How would you handle Iraq shooting at our planes?

the way it was being handled already. there was no crisis there.

What was the extent of Iraq's participation in the 93 bombing of the Towers?

? none that i'm aware of.

In the assassination attempt of GHWB?

i've read some material indicating the assassination plot was much overblown to the point of not existing. assuming it was a real plot, two administrations had deemed it not worthy of a use of significant force. (clinton, i recall, sent cruise missiles into the iraqi intelligence hq)

however, if the plot was real and if the plot had succeeded, that would certainly be an act of war in my opinion.

"iraq wasn't complying with the inspections regime because it needed the threat deterrent against its internal enemies and neighbors.

So it's internal enemies and neighbors didn't catch on to this, as well as most of the rest of the world, but you and some of our intelligence did? And assuming you were president, you were willing to bet the lives of the American people that Saddam was bluffing? How many of your assumptions come from what you now know post invasion?

the UN did not authorize the invasion for good reasons, this being one of them.

i think any rational person could see this as a possibility. it was up to the administration to sift through the possibilities and come up with the right one -- they failed.

and a reason they failed is that they had a predetermined outcome (invasion of iraq is necessary) and they disregarded all evidence to the contrary, including from our own intelligence, all aided by a consumate yes man, george tenet.

to the extent the rest of the world (though not the UN security council), the press, the opposition and the american public believed in the wmd threat, it was largely because of the preceding paragraph.

how else do you explain that the unclassified portions of the 2002 NIE all point to WMD while the classified portions point to no WMD? thats called pushing an agenda. and it worked.

"if that were the case, then yes, at that time, for that situation, it would. given that there were no wmd, i dont think you can credibly argue that was the case."

You know that now because of the invasion. That's my point. As I said, he fooled everyone except for you apparently.

"the UN did not authorize the invasion for good reasons, this being one of them. "

The reason we couldn't get the UN to sign off on it, had nothing to do with WMD's, but rather the fact the UN was paid off.

"i've read some material indicating the assassination plot was much overblown to the point of not existing. assuming it was a real plot, two administrations had deemed it not worthy of a use of significant force. (clinton, i recall, sent cruise missiles into the iraqi intelligence hq)

however, if the plot was real and if the plot had succeeded, that would certainly be an act of war in my opinion. "

So you assign a logical credibility to an administration that does what you want, but not if you disagree? Could there not have been a number of factors why Clinton only responded with cruise missiles?

The way were handling the shooting at our pilots was to do nothing more than what we were doing already, while the UN and the rest of the world, and quite possibly you, were insisting we ratchet down the containment, since 500,000 babies were dying.

My point being that we were at a low level war with Iraq for a number of years. Iraq had been issuing threats for a number of years. After 911, the stakes were higher. You argue that the president should have done the responsible thing and bet the safety of the American people that he was bluffing. I argue we should not. You feel that stating that we do nothing until you see a mushroom cloud over a city was arguing a imminent threat? Now that Iran is working towards a working nuke and NK apparently has them, at what point do you think that statement begins to hold water? And do we wait to do anything until that time?

The latest talking point from the Left: "forget that we've been trumpteting 1998 as the warmest year in US climate history, forget that four of America's Top 10 hottest years turn out to be from the 1930s, lets talk about global climate history instead."...

Well, Fen, when it comes to science, I suggest you listen to THE SCIENTISTS instead of "the Left" or "the Right." Scientists who study global climate change do NOT base climate change theories or projections on just US temperature data, for obvious reasons. So the problem you have here relates to your nonscientific sources of information, not the science itself.

I'm actually disappointed with you Cyrus. A while back you lamented the fact that the Left had distorted Gingrich's behavior with the "Newt served his wife divorce papers in the hospital" myth, because you felt it undermined any legitimate points they were making.

That was not the exact point I was making. The problem is two-fold: the exaggerations/distortions/fabrications involved in the narrative, AND the partisan reading of the narrative. As it relates to Gingrich, the story of his first divorce as told by "the Left" is essentially correct although there are a few minor errors. The unfortunate consequence of the errors (aside from the misinformation itself) is that "the Right" uses these minor inaccuracies to discredit a basically corrective narrative. In the case of the recalculated US temperature series, the adjustments to the temperatures all lie within the range of error associated with these calculations, and the longer term temperature rankings are unchanged. Also, the change in global mean temperatures (i.e., the relevant parameter) shows imperceptible change.

In short, there's no reason for you to be disappointed in me; I've been perfectly consistent in encouraging you to look at the science, not the spin. On that basis, I should be disappointed in you for (again) whining about the spin you don't like and clinging to the spin you do like. Ignore the spin, Fen, and stick with the science.

Likewise, I've complained to you about the GW "hoax" because I don't trust such conclusions when people like Mann refuse to open their methodology up after their work is called into question [and discredited].

It's a shame you're still spouting this garbage. Mann has never refused to share his data (his critics all have the exact same data set), or to give complete details of his methodology. (I think you're perhaps thinking of Roberts, et al from the study of excess mortality in Iraq.)Also, Mann's work has NOT been discredited, as you suggest. Several studies since have confirmed Mann's findings. (I'll happily provide you with references on request.)

Now we have yet another scientist who refused to release his model for scrutiny. Steve McIntyre [again] had to reverse engineer it to find the flaws. So now I'm even more skeptical of the "settled science" behind Global Warming.

This is just plain wrong. The temperature series calculations are done by NASA. These calculations are done using the GISTEMP analysis. Details of the GISTEMP methodology can be found in this 2001 paper.

McIntyre didn't "reverse engineer" anything. He noted a strange blip in the data in going from 1999 to 2000. As it turns out, this problem was caused by a transition between two different sets of US temperature data that had not been properly adjusted to match.

If you are going to use this correction to question the validity of global climate change assertions, at least try to understand the basics, please. And as I've said before, you don't qualify as a "skeptic" in my mind, because your "skepticism" isn't rooted in science.

I thought science was also about being able to replicate experiments?

No, this isn't strictly true. Do you doubt evolution because we can't replicate the whole of it?

How can the research be confirmed when the scientists refuse to share their data, algorithims and models?

This is a myth.

And why would any respectable scientist refuse to let others scrutinize his work?

Do you understand that work that appears in peer-reviewed journals IS scrutinized?

Instead of distracting with "ignore the mistake on US data, look over here at global data instead", you should be complaining that shenanigans from scientists like Mann and the NASA guy undermine the credibility of the Global Warming movement.

The corrections to the US temperature series are extremely minor and certainly do not change anything with regard to the global climate change "picture." It's a shame you don't bother to understand the science to see this.

And again, your facts are wrong. There is no "NASA guy" and neither Mann nor NASA are guilty of "shenanigans." In this case, my only complaint is with those, driven my partisan considerations, who ignore the science and parrot the spin. Mark Steyn is a good example of this.